My not-so-great generation of elders appear to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the “what’s in it for me?” generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the integrity of Earth; precious little willingness to actually protect the environment from irreversible degradation; precious little serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the understanding that we are no more or less than human and have “feet of clay”.

We live in a soon to be unsustainable way in our planetary home and we are proud of it, thank you very much. Certainly, we will “have our cake and eat it, too”. We will fly private jets, live in McMansions, go to our distant hideouts and risk nothing of value to us. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear them, see them, or speak of them. We, economic powerbrokers, bought-and-paid-for politicians and our many minions in the mass media will meet you with hysterical deafness, willful blindness and elective mutism. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our ‘rights’ to the unrestrained consumption of Earth’s limited resources; to expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; to encourage the unbridled growth of the human species so that where there are now 6+ billion people, soon we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps 90 billion into the future, if that is what we desire.

We are self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe. We have no regard for human limits or Earth’s limitations, thank you very much. Please understand that we do not want anyone to present us with scientific evidence that we might be living in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making…… a manmade world filling up with distinctly human enterprises which appear the be approaching a point in human history when THE INCREASE in global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species becomes patently unsustainable in the world God has blessed us to inhabit….. and not to overwhelm, I suppose.

Sincerely,

Steve

The Heinberg essay looks well worth reading, In Al Bartlett’s famous talk, Arithmetic, Population and Energy, he points out that many pronouncements about having coal reserves enough to last, say, 300 years at current levels of extraction, are highly misleading, simply because extraction rates are increasing due to population growth and increasing per capita consumption, So current rates don’t apply and, amazingly, when you do the math, accounting for the increasing rates, those 500 years plummet to levels more like 50 years. Those pronouncements talking about “current rates” appear to me to be intentionally misleading. Anyway, I’ll read the Heinberg essay as soon as I can.

http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/179

“A soon-to-be-released study by the Energy Watch Group in Germany on the future of global coal supplies has implications so surprising and far-reaching that energy policymakers may take years to digest it. This essay is intended to help speed that process. The report’s central conclusions are that minable global coal reserves are much smaller than is commonly thought, and that a peak in world coal production is likely within only ten to fifteen years.

I will first offer some context for appreciating these conclusions, by way of some general information about global coal usage. Then I will describe the basis for the report’s conclusions, and finally will attempt to draw out some of the implications (not discussed by the report’s authors) for world energy supply and climate policy………………..”

The founder of Rough Guides now believes that our addiction to ‘binge flying’ is killing the planet

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2007/may/06/travelnews.climatechange?print

Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guides and the man who encouraged a generation of travellers to pack a rucksack and explore the world, has compared the damage done by tourism to the impact of the tobacco industry.

Ellingham now says travelling is so environmentally destructive that there is no such thing as a genuinely ethical holiday. He wants the industry to educate travellers about the damage their holidays do to the environment. The development he regrets most is the public’s appetite for what he calls ‘binge-flying’.

‘The tobacco industry fouled up the world while denying [it] as much as possible for as long as they could,’ said Ellingham. ‘If the travel industry rosily goes ahead as it is doing, ignoring the effect that carbon emissions from flying are having on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a very similar position to the tobacco industry’……………………………….

Amelia Hill, social affairs correspondent,
The Observer
Sunday May 6 2007

- “Today’s acquisition is an important strategic move which supports our global growth ambition and increases our reserve bookings in the long term,” said Helge Lund, chief executive of Statoil.

- —

Norwegian Environment Organizations have their spokespeople spreading all over the press these days, all expressing their concerns about the hypocrisy of Statoil. These organizations are also making it perfectly clear that Norwegian policy-makers can and should be committed to making domestic CO2-cuts. –

Leading Norwegian politicians are mute on both topics. Money, that’s funny.

- —

“ECOCIDE FOR A QUICK BUCK” – that’s a very good headline, John.

Here’s what’s happening in oil-rich Norway: the governing Labour party has just made a promise to cut emissions by 30% within 2020, and make sure that Norway becomes a so-called “climate neutral” country by 2050. Problem is: they’ve also decided against making any domestic emissions cuts. They’re simply going to buy a hell of a lot of climate credits, thus “helping” China, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. do what we’re not going to do at home; ie. make real-world emissions cuts.

Gro Harlem Brundtland (you’ve heard a lot of good things about her, haven’t you?) actually said that all those people who insisted on domestic emissions cuts here, were “fools.”

So: I’m a fool. “Climate neutral, my ass!” is what I’m saying. That’s exactly how foolish I am. Unless Norway – as well as all other western overpolluters – start cutting their domestic emissions, there is no way … no way to bring global warming to a halt … we all know that, but hey! – Money talks.

We’ve up against an economic criterion of rationality here. That’s not philosophy! It’s big business, and nothing else matters.

What’s going to happen to this planet if the USA should choose to look to Norway and duly come up with the same solution: one of not making any domestic emissions cuts but “become the world’s greenest nation” by means of buying enough climate credits to match its domestic emissions?

I mean: what is this? Is it money magic? Should I call it currency voodoo?

The Rewilding Institute http://www.rewilding.org

Issue Seven March 31, 2007

“To the Edge of the Universe With Julian Simon

In some circles, the late Julian Simon has fame as a Dragon Slayer. The Dragon that Sir Julian slew was the dread Doomsdayer. The largest and most fearsome of its many poisonous heads was Ehrlich. Not only did Sir Julian lop Ehrlich off with his magic sword Blind Optimism, he pried back the thick scale Malthus that covered the Black Jewel Prudence, an evil vat of pessimism and restraint, and pierced it with his eternally shining lance point Pollyanna, thereby showing Doomsdayer’s heart had no power. In the Fairy Tale world of Wall Street Journal cornucopians, this is the new favorite fable. But it has much wider acceptance than the libertarian right, witness The New York Times editorial welcoming the 300 millionth American last fall.”

Read the rest here: http://www.northwoodswild.org/newspro/viewnews.cgi?id=EEZZkZlpFyxKJwBXBT

I appreciate your comment, but you did post it here once before.

Feel free to jump into the discussion though. I’d be interested in your additional thoughts on anything here.

The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.

Fast visuals/ words make slow emotions extinct.

Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys emotional circuits.

A fast (large) society cannot feel pain / remorse / empathy.

A fast (large) society will always be cruel to Animals/ Trees/ Air/ Water/ Land and to Itself.

To read the complete article please follow any of these links :

PlanetSave

FreeInfoSociety

ePhilosopher

sushil_yadav

America the Complacent.
by Jim Lydecker
PO Box 10755
Napa, California 94581

“We’re an ignorant nation right now. I don’t think we’re bright enough to preserve our democracy, our republic. We’re in serious danger.” Walter Cronkite

“A crisis is a problem that was ignored. All great crises were ignored until it was too late.” Mathew Simmons

complacency: A feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of impending danger.

Everyday, news is released about something threatening life as we know it. It may receive front page status or be the lead-in of a newscast before disappearing in a day or two giving the impression the problem no longer exists or warrants coverage.

Most likely, however, it is never covered by the mainstream media and is relegated to some obscure scientific or economic journal/web site.

An example of the former was the April 6 release by the UN climate report from Brussels. Nothing less than apocalyptical, it painted the most bleak future so far. It got world-wide headlines the next day before disappearing from the mainstream media.

Read the rest here:

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/04/21/opinion/commentary/doc46297f0dd0eb9742172997.txt

As difficult as it is for me to report, it appears that my no-so-great generation of elders will be remembered for making the most colossal mistake in human history. That is to say, during the course of my adult, illusion-filled life, the leaders of my generation have repeatedly obscured and magnificently failed to make comprehensible the formidable global challenges posed to humanity in these early years of Century XXI……..challenges to the future of life as know it on Earth which continue to be ignored even though certain clear and present dangers are now visible on the far horizon.

By staying the same ol’ business-as-usual course of adamantly insisting upon 1) perpetual increases in per human consumption of limited resources, 2) endless expansion of the global economy on a small finite planet and 3) unregulated growth of absolute global human population numbers, we could be leading our children down a ‘primrose path’ no reasonable human being would ever choose to take. What a tragedy!

Sincerely,

Steve

Consider this: we know that – under normal circumstances – the world’s population is going to reach 9 billion in forty years’ time. But does anyone know of any research going on, on what might be the outcome of a significant population growth like this? – I’m thinking in terms of land use, for example: does anyone try to analyse the environmental implications of the expected population growth? – How about the social and cultural implications? – As far as I know, all scholars simply nod at the population projections, calling them facts of life, but not thinking actively about real life implications of what is known.

Why? – Well, probably because the very thought of a forty percent increase of the world’s population is far too nauseating to start pondering over. Plodding at this big issue puts the scholar in a particularly awkward position, I guess. – Especially now that we’re about to come to terms with the environmental devastation 6 1/2 billion people can muster.

INCREDIBLY, you will not find discussions in professional journals by demographers and population scientists on the evidence of Hopfenberg and Pimentel. From inside the walls of academe, there comes only deafening silence.

What I have been appealing for is this: expressions of intellectual honesty, scientific integrity and a professional commitment to good science itself.

Incidentally, Dr. Jason C. Bradford visited Chapel Hill three years ago this week. In 2004 Jason Bradford, Alan Thornhill, Executive Director of the Society for Conservation Biology, and Russ Hopfenberg were featured speakers at the 3rd Annual Earth Day Summit on The Human Population.

At this point in time, for the UN Population Division demographers to continue parading projections based upon what appears to be fundamentally flawed “DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION THEORY,” given the unchallenged evidence from Hopfenberg and Pimentel, at least to me, amounts to a dereliction of duty……………..a transgression with potentially profound implications for the future of life as we know it on Earth.

Always,

Steve

I have not so far found any serious critiques of the Hopfenberg/Pimental work. Are there none as far as you know? I haven’t looked exhaustively yet, and plan to do some additional googling on it in the next week, but am wondering…

In the meantime, I stumbled on an interesting discussion post on the site, Longbets.com (It’s a sight where people make bets about events far into the future, and the winner’s money goes to a designated charity.) It only seems to be available in Google’s cache, so I don’t know how much longer it will be there, but scroll down to find the highlighted “Russ Hopfenberg” and you’ll find a comment by Jason C. Bradford which cites Joel Cohen offering a caution about conventional demographic prediction, saying that “conventional population projections… ignore food, water, housing, education, health, physical infrastructure, religion, values, institutions, laws, family structure, domestic and international order, and the physical and biological environment.”

And yet people take projections like those of the UN as though they were something comfortably to rely on. Hmmm…